What is Next for Weather and Climate?

The Trump administration is well aware of the political use and scientific abuse of climate for a political agenda. I learned how aware while attending the Heritage Foundation Climate Conference on Thursday December 8 in Washington D.C. The majority of the public sense there is something wrong as reflected in their lack of concern measured in all polls. They will be very angry when the extent of the deception is explained to them, as will happen as the new administration lays out the foundation for their policies. The question is what happens going forward. We know those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Similarly, you cannot prevent all misuses of any system and trying to do so only makes it inefficient and even unworkable. Science must be central to whatever direction taken.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cannot survive. It was designed to achieve a deceptive result by limiting the research to only human causes of climate change. They effectively made reform or change impossible because each set of Reports is cumulative. That is, each Report simply adds new information to a very limited number of variables. The reality is you can only determine the human impact by knowing and understanding all the variables and mechanisms of natural climate. Most of the public think the IPCC look at climate and climate change in total and IPCC participants and promoters did nothing to dissuade them of that error. This is part of the proof that IPCC creators had a singular political objective for which natural variability was a problem. Without the political objective there is no need for a government agency like the IPCC even to determine natural climate and climate change.

Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This organization is comprised of weather bureaucrats from every UN member nation. They created, controlled, and promoted the IPCC agenda so that politicians had no choice, as Strong intended. This, and President Obama’s use of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are proof that bureaucracies must not have control going forward. Their role must be as passive collectors and disseminators of data. They should not be involved in research. This was a major part of the problem with the IPCC and weather office involvements. Scientific bureaucrats are automatically compromised by their career being subject to the whim and will of their political bosses. Skepticism, the very hallmark of science, is automatically stifled in such a hierarchical structure.

Global warming was chosen by those setting up the IPCC because they needed something they could claim was a global threat. It was a subset of Maurice Strong’s objective as Elaine Dewar determined after spending five days with him at the UN.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

Strong and his allies created a global threat that they then used to argue could only be resolved by a world government. That is not necessary as long as all the data is available to everyone so that any group can deal with local, regional, hemispheric or global weather and climate. Smaller groups offset the paradox of the ability for a few people to dominate with bigger groups. Smaller groups also accommodate the fact that different regions have markedly different geography and climate so the concerns and needs are different.

These differences were exploited by the IPCC. For example, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Report (ACIA) was prepared and controlled by a few people associated with Environment Canada (EC) who were able to present a very false picture. Despite this it became the definitive study for the entire section on Arctic climate in the IPCC Reports. People from other regions did not know about the errors or problems and so I was easily marginalized when I asked questions. The climate and problems of Australia are not the problems of Northern Canada. Indeed, they are not even the same for southern and northern Australia.

The WMO has a role to play and it was defined by Hubert Lamb as his reason for establishing the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

“…it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.

The only role for WMO and all national weather offices is creation of a dense standardized grid of data collection stations including as many existing viable stations as possible. This should be integrated with the satellite data collection program. WMO will store the data and make it available at no charge to any person or group. This should include all proxy data, including everything from ice cores to tree rings to weather diaries. These agencies should only collect, store, and disseminate data. They should not do any research or forecasting. These are better left to the academic world or private enterprise as companies like Accuweather or individuals like Piers Corbyn demonstrate. It is hard to think of an area where successful results will more directly affect the viability of an enterprise than weather and climate forecasting. Indeed, a major part of the problem with government doing the job is it didn’t matter how often they were wrong there was no accountability or incentive to improve.

Besides taking the politics out of weather and climate science these changes will save money. The billions going to politically directed and useless climate change research will more than cover the data collection requirement.

It must begin with a campaign to offset the hysteria deliberately created by the founders and acolytes of the IPCC. This must be a joint campaign led by the US and any other like minded nation. At the Heritage Climate Conference one of the most effective speakers who understood the science and who confronted the challenge was Corbin Robinson Jr,, principal of Quintana Capital Group, from Texas. He said,

The coming climate science battle will also involve PowerPoints. Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand, …it was time for a broader outreach to counteract the notion that carbon dioxide from emissions was harming the planet. “I’m here with a call to action to you guys; it’s time to go on offense,” he said. “Develop a series of newspaper foldouts, develop a series of newspaper foldouts that explain CO2s, life on Earth and its beneficial effect on plant life. CO2 always was and always will be.”

This was the theme of my speech at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York. It was also the major thrust of my involvement in establishing the Friends of Science in Calgary and the Galileo Movement in Australia. It is a challenge because the majority of the public, some 80 percent, are Arts students. I know what is needed after 25 years reaching a Science credit course for Arts students. I also know from giving hundreds of public lectures over 40 years, but especially from working with people in primary resource industries including forestry, fisheries and agriculture. The latter included writing a monthly column for Country Guide, the largest circulation Canadian farm magazine for 17 years and then an ongoing column for The Landowner since 2010. Hundreds of radio programs and most recently seven one hour Skype programs with Romanian TV. A producer contacted me after investigating the climate issue. He discovered that the Romanian people were only getting the IPCC view and he determined they should hear what they are not told.

I warned him that presenting this information was potentially dangerous. He said it was more important people know the all the science. My warning was because it is likely that my three lawsuits are related to my activities. Voltaire said

“It is dangerous to be right when people in authority are wrong.”

Many were unsure if the people in authority were finally right. Trump’s meetings with carbon footprint hypocrites Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, seemed to signal something different. All this was put to rest with the appointment of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Conversations and information gleaned at the Heritage Climate Conference on Thursday assures me accurate climate science is in charge. The challenge is to deprogram the people, remove the exploitive agencies and rules they created, and set up a system that is as free of politics as possible.

As with all my articles, nothing is cast in stone. It is my summary of what has gone on and what I think is required going forward. It is written in the context of what is needed, namely open forums at which all ideas are given voice. From that collective wisdom we are most likely to get the best answers. It is in the spirit of the final stage of the American Revolution in which the people have access to information through the Internet. They can bypass the mainstream media, who have always acted as propagandists for the elites, to let the leaders know what they think.

213 thoughts on “What is Next for Weather and Climate?”

These agencies should only collect, store, and disseminate data. They should not do any research or forecasting.
============
100% agree. Combining the two roles is as is done currently violates industry standard experimental and data quality controls. Humans cannot avoid subconscious bias except by proper design of data controls, which means first and foremost, separation of responsibilities.

We do this in business without question. Long experience shows that you need to separate the person handling the money from the person counting the money. The same logic applies to anything of value, including information. It is high time that science, government and academia did the same.

In business, if you cook the books you get put in jail. In government and academia you get promoted. It is high time the same rules applied to all.

Canadian professional engineers wear a steel ring on their right little finger to remind them of the1907 collapse of what was to be the World’s longest cantelevered bridge over the St Lawrence’s R. It fell when nearly completed killing a large number of workers. The rings were traditionally made from the bridge steel although I understand that today it is made from new steel. I fully recommend that new scientists have a similar solemn ceremony of some kind upon graduation. Any ideas?

Gary Pearse – good comment. One minor issue – the ring is issued to graduates, who may or may not go on to become “Professional Engineers”.

I have met many a Canadian Engineer in my travels just through seeing that distinctive little ring.

The Iron Ring Ceremony – The old “iron” rings would wear out, get thin and then crush around your finger when you were doing physical work. The new ones are stainless steel (except in Ontario) and much more durable. I am on my fourth one – two wore out, the third was cut off after being squashed when I broke some fingers. Hopefully the last one will survive me. It is the only ring I wear as I found out long ago that my activities were hard on rings and fingers but I figured I could afford to lose my little finger (and nearly have, more than once).

My “Obligation Certificate” still hangs on my wall. The “Obligation” can be seen in the article referenced below. I still think of it often. Other professions have similar obligations – doctors, lawyers.

Do meteorologists or scientists? Dunno. But they ought to.

Canadian Architects, originally part of engineering, also wear a ring, often silver, with the same “Obligation”.

Canadian professional engineers wear a steel ring on their right little finger to remind them of the1907 collapse of what was to be the World’s longest cantelevered bridge over the St Lawrence’s R. It fell when nearly completed killing a large number of workers. The rings were traditionally made from the bridge steel although I understand that today it is made from new steel. I fully recommend that new scientists have a similar solemn ceremony of some kind upon graduation. Any ideas?

I am on my third ring. Lost one, wore out one. I hope to wear out this stainless one too.
The calling of the engineer ceremony is now also done in some US universities, so not all ring wearers are Canadians. I love the daily reminder of my oath perform work that protects the public.

Let’s hope the piece of legislation just passed will not impact the future of your last few sentences. Let alone the crackdown on information and censorship our social medial providers and search engines are working on dilligently. I would suspect most of this activity was expecting a HRC victory. We will see.

The only explanation necessary is to show the graph back to the last couple of glaciations. The plain fact that the world was both much warmer, and much colder, in antiquity long before the industrial age is ALL most ordinary people (like me) need to know to draw their own conclusions. Nothing is harder hitting! Just show the true historical record without “adjustments.”

Yes. A true representation of the temperature profile is not a scary thing. It demonstrates that temperatures trend up for a couple of decades and then trend down, and then up again. Not straight up at a 45 degree angle like the bogus surface temperature charts the alarmists use to scare people. Place the real termperature profile and the fake temperature profile side-by-side and let the people decide.

It’s no wonder that the Elites want to stifle the internet. Thanks Dr. Ball, you are no longer the lone voice in the wilderness. You , Anthony and the many others on this site are incredibly important to the freedom of speech and information.

Three items will help President Trump politically dismantle the Climate Hustle.
– The PDO is in a negative phase for at least a decade.
– The AMO is negative now and will be for 20+ more years.
– The current solar cycle is crashing to a 100 yr low for the next 4 years, maybe an additional 2 cycles as well.

The Climate Hustle has left the world ill-prepared for the coming 2 decades of cold.

With a US Fed govt $3.6 Trillion dollar annual budget and $20 Trillion of debt, a few billion “re-allocated” is nothing compared to the globalTrillion dollar Climate Hustle, where the orld is not prepared for cold.

But make no mistake, the Watermelons have terms like Climate Disruption and Climate Interference waiting to replace Climate Change warming as their goto meme when the global cold hits.

Joel I honestly cannot see that benefiting them much. The public has already seen their cynical branding change once and to keep doing that over and over is only going to make them look more stupid and dishonest than they already do.

The Climate Hustle has left the world ill-prepared for the coming 2 decades of cold.

As a lukewarmer type I really have difficulties is seeing how probable a cooling would be. Lets hope there is no big change whatsoever. A two decade cooling would be scary because it would mean CO2 effect with feedbacks is too small to offset natural cooling that would surely be devastating in the long run.

Some warming is OK, but tipping point cooling would kill millions and millions.

The tipping point in the Holocene has already occurred at about 1000BC. Since then cooling has occurred at 20 times the rate of the pervious 7000 years. The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD was the coldest so far of our happy interglacial.

From previous experience the end of of the Holocene is overdue. Global cooling could well begin to accelerate further this century, next century or this millennium.

The sun is descending into a truly quiet phase similar to the Little Ice Age could signal either a cold interlude (quite bad enough for Man-kind and the biosphere) or the escalation to the end our our Interglacial with all the adverse effects that implies: See

Unlike global warming, natural cooling won’t be a sudden disaster. Look at the ice core records. Almost every interglacial started with a sudden rise in temperature. The last one may have been as short as 500-1000 years when the temperature jumped about 10C. After the warming in almost all cases the world immediately started fitfully cooling- slow cooling with ups and downs over 80-100,000 years, ending up with a couple of miles of ice in various places. Then another heat wave came. We have a long, slow way to go before cold becomes a major problem. We just have to leave our descendants in a position to adapt to and survive the next ice age. That may be problematical.

joelobryan December 10, 2016 at 9:35 pm
– The AMO is negative now and will be for 20+ more years.

———————

Nope, last month the AMO index was +0.400C, a relatively high value, although the AMO does appear to be impacted somewhat by large ENSO events with a lag of 8 months or so. You can see this in the AMO of 1878, 1944, 1998, 2016. Thus, it may just be high right now due to the last super-El-Nino. (On the other hand, they are now mucking around so much with the Ocean SSTs that it could actually be a low value. We won’t be able to tell anymore because everything is adjusted in a basement office at the NCDC now). But it is high right now.

on the AMO, the 7 yr moving average is what matters for multidecadal climate effects. Monthly numbers are noisy signls. That real physical number my affect weather, but that’s not climate.
AMO 7 year moving avg peaked in 2014-2015.

I agree completely with Bill. The AMO is still strongly positive. However, it has started it’s cooling phase which means it has reached its peak and started on its long 30+ year downward journey. However, GASTA effects likely lag the AMO index due to the already melted Arctic sea ice.

It takes time to melt the ice and just like an ice cube doesn’t melt immediately in your drink, it has taken about 2/3 of the positive mode of the AMO to finally get Arctic sea ice to where it is today. Even though the AMO index will be going down, the water is still warm enough on average to make any big sea ice recovery unlikely. This means open ocean water is releasing heat and will keep the GASTA higher especially during the 6 months when it affects the Arctic temperature the most (Nov-Apr).

We could easily see another 5-10 years of relatively low Arctic sea ice. If you’ve been looking for a big recovery then I wouldn’t hold my breath. The only thing that could change this would be a strong multi-year La Nina and right now that doesn’t seem likely.

Not according to the loons….
Now we have the polar vortex…they’ll probably start naming them soon too..caused by lack of ice…and when the AMO is positive…the Atlantic current takes it right into the NWP

“The coming climate science battle will also involve PowerPoints. Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand, ”

This is crucial, starting with a simple but effective response to the common belief that there’s a 97 percent consensus that we’re all going to fry. I have relatives….young women…who’ve been weeping hysterically since Trump was elected. Their fear and sorrow and despair, though on the one hand ludicrous, is also genuine. They’re convinced that all life on earth is in peril.They’re terrified of the grim future they’re convinced awaits their children.

The global warming fear is a kind of terrible virus, intentionally spread, which has infected many well meaning, if credulous people. There’ll be no easy cure, but it starts with debate. We welcome that debate. But we must be also be ready for that debate. I’ve been disappointed so far, with the way skeptical scientists have handled themselves in the few public congressional hearings they’ve been invited to. They just haven’t been prepared with ready talking points.

“This is crucial, starting with a simple but effective response to the common belief that there’s a 97 percent consensus that we’re all going to fry. ”

I think this is very important.

If you notice, all the advocates of CAGW go to this talking point almost immediately. It’s effective, if not refuted. Most people don’t have the time or temperment to look into these things themselves so they have to depend on the advice of experts, and when you tell them 97 percent of experts say CAGW is real it makes an impact on a person who is not knowledgeable of the facts.

It’s not only about power point. It’s also about finding a common core. Alarmists and skeptics both very often argue with extreme statements.

Calling a CAGW believer a fool or something like that will certainly produce some bad hormones, causing the “fight or flight” state. We really know so little about climate and its better to search a neutral area to start with, or areas where both sides can agree with.

Then there is the lengthiness of the most skeptics videos. Even for me it’s often boring to go through.

We just have to think how to get videos viral. And to make short clips with a message that is exiting and creating a true interest to watch additional stuff.

Another problem is that climate skeptic stuff often is combined with other conservative or right views. You cannot convince somebody by expecting to swallow all thing at once.

And the there a lot of skeptical arguments which are simply not true, like DrRoySpencer.com points out:

To convince others we have to be friendly, precise and concise. And to have a lot of endurance. It would be a great thing to work on this, but I have some doubt that the skeptic community will agree to. I just have heard enough angry, name-calling skeptical rant about non-believers.

One of the first public push-backs ought to be a survey (maybe at the behest of a congressional committee) of ‘climate scientists’ in general (maybe the membership of APS) as to the perceived most likely value of the TCR and/or EQS – given that the AR5 was unable to agree upon a figure.

This may be the most effective way of getting rid of the ‘overwhelming evidence’ and ‘97% of scientists’ propaganda, which persuade most of the un-scienced public.

I realise that head-counting will be offensive to some. If that objection can’t be overcome, at least establish a small expert committee, chaired by a judge, to report on the recent scholarship on sensitivity..

we’ve been sold a bill of goods under the old Malthusian rubric of saving the planet from ourselves. a bizarre concept. and nobody asked: if we are the problem and if cagw will get rid of us with extreme weather and rising seas, isn’t that a good thing for the planet in the long run?
burn those fossil fuels please.
burn baby burn.

The coming climate science battle will also involve PowerPoints. Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand,

This has already been done. Once the public gets to look at the data and conclusions they realize real quick that there are real problems with this “science.” This documentary highlights such efforts.

Somewhat larger correction – 80% of the public are NOT Arts students. I haven’t seen figures, so perhaps 80% of the college-indoctrinated are Arts students. That is not the “public” – closer to 80% of the public are people who work (or have worked) for a living. Which is why “climate change” is so low in every last poll.

The best argument against AGW can be made by controlling for all the factors except CO2. That is how any real science would approach this issue.
1) The only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate is by trapping IR radiation between 13 and 18&micron;.
2) CO2 can only trap heat, and therefore can only contribute to warming.
3) IR radiation between 13 and 18&micron; is consistent with a black body of -80°C.
4) H20 saturates the IR absorption in most of the lower atmosphere.

To isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature you would need a place with a temperature near -80°C, and very very very dry air. That place exists at the S Pole. Here is the temperature graph of the S Pole. Clearly CO2 has no impact on temperature.

Data has shown that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by up to hundreds of years. The increase of CO2 today may very well be associated with temperature changes of the past. The chart is misleading because it assumes that temperature and CO2 change in step. They don’t. Co2 does not cause temperature change, temperature change causes CO2 changes! This will eventually become evident as the oceans cool, and absorb more CO2. Don’t expect to be around to verify it though…

I don’t think it would be safe to simply pull the teeth of the EPA, abolition is safer. That way Congress would have to support any new agency with similar powers – it wouldn’t be possible to resurrect the EPA by executive order.

EPA was created by a Nixon Executive Order. House and Senate then ratified his actions.

The best way to defang the EPA is for Congress to amend the Clean Air Act that allowed the EPA to make endangerment findings and create whole nation altering regulations without the consent of Congress.

Also the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act need revisions to stop an out-of-control President and prevent major regulatory schemes implementation without Congressional ratification.

Where does the claim that 80% of the public are Arts students come from? As far as I know
at most 50% of people nowadays attend University and of that again at most 50% are arts students
Giving at most 25% of the public being arts students (and previously the number would have been much
lower).

In general 25% of the population have a math aptitude, and 75% struggle. The hard sciences draw largely from those that find math easy. The hard sciences can be easily recognized because the word “science” does not appear in their name. For example, we don’t call physics “physical science”.

The soft sciences are where we place those without a math aptitude that like to think of themselves as scientists. The soft sciences can be easily recognized because they add the word “science” to their name. Such “political science” or “climate science”. These are art courses dressed up to appear like science.

Thus in soft sciences like climate science, it is what you believe and what you deny that is important, while in hard sciences like math and physics it is what you observe that is important.

The one exception is those that have a math aptitude that go into the soft sciences. These people tend to dominate the soft sciences because they can dress things up to look like real science, and fool the rest of their field because the rest of their field is weak in math.

So for example, “tree ring calibration” was invented by a climate scientists with math aptitude. It looks logical to other climate scientists that have no math aptitude, so they believe the results. While in point of fact anyone with college level statistics knows tree ring calibration is a POS..

Any artist who has spent any time at his/her craft knows that you can sometimes spend hours and days slaving away at a creation, struggling to make it look right, fighting tooth and nail to get it fixed to where it no longer annoys you, so that you can live with it. And sometimes, even after going through all this, you reach a point where you positively have to stand back and look at the creation objectively, and, if necessary, admit that it sucks, trash it, and start all over again. Such artists KNOW the truth when they see it.

Catastrophic Human-Caused CO2 Global Warming is such a creation, and it’s time to stand back to assess the truth of it.

I’m an artist, by the way (click on my name to see some of my crap), and I have been “standing back” to assess the truth of this creation for a few years now, and I still see it as crap that needs to be trashed, because too many things about it bug the hell out of me.

Very few strong Forbush decreases occur and their effect on cloud formation is expected to be close to the limit of detection using global atmospheric observations measured by satellites and land based stations.

I don’t see anything wrong. If you’re going to call him wrong you have to point out his actual error. As far as I can tell, your post doesn’t refute anything Svensmark actually said.

It is always that way when it is not real.
It was the case of the The N ray affair

As I said cosmic rays on Earth follow mainly the geomagnetic dipole. As the climatic variations don’t look at all like the dipole variations, it follows that cosmic rays cannot have an important role in the climate of the Earth at any significant temporal scale to us.

I see you are more comfortable in the realm of rhetoric than science. The CO2 effect is so simple to measure that it was measured in primitive labs over a hundred years ago, and repeatedly since.

Do not try to redefine science in your terms when you ignore almost everything about it. Svensmark effect remains hypothetical and not supported by the evidence. People that don’t care too much about science, like you, don’t mind however.

Here’s a link to a WUWT story from August 25. I think that’s what you are referring to.

The cosmic ray influence on clouds is hard to measure. It’s like trying to separate the anthropogenic influence from natural variability. Of course the alarmists apply their double standard and dismiss the cosmic ray influence and take the anthropogenic influence as gospel.

The real science is nuanced and difficult. Even James Hansen admits that his previous alarmist approach was wrong.

The only role for WMO and all national weather offices is creation of a dense standardized grid of data collection stations including as many existing viable stations as possible. … They should not do any research or forecasting.

The free government weather forecasts are important. Many people depend on them, aviators, farmers, fishers, to name a few.

Some people’s lives depend on the marine weather forecast. An example would be the folks living in small fishing communities. They can get radio signals but they don’t have the internet. For many years they have been able to know if a major storm was looming by listening to the marine weather forecast. Fishing has always been a dangerous way to make a living but I am sure the marine weather forecast has made it less so.

Many years of blue water sailing taught me not to trust government forecasts. all too often the forecast is reporting what has happened, not what will happen. experience on the water saves many more lives than the government forecasts.

From personal experience, the very worst times we have had on the ocean came from trusting the official forecast when my gut feel was that the forecast was wrong. We were lucky, but over the years a lot of boats we knew were badly beat up or lost as a result.

the problem is that the government forecast has no correction mechanism. in business, if your forecast is wrong, your customers go elsewhere and you go out of business. governments never fire incompetents, lest they themselves get fired. they don’t want to start a dangerous precedent. so a lot of the time the free government forecast is worth exactly what you paid for it – it is worth nothing.

Good piece with common sense…and you will need us in UK to assist. How that will happen i don’t know because we are riddled with well known fanatics and their bag carriers. And they are of a particular education type…those with a high University PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics). You can pick one up at Oxford Uni…simply pay and go!

Stop funding the alarmists and the whole thing should fairly quietly fall away. Keep government out of this foolish business is the best start. I’d go as far as to call back monies wherever possible. Just hoping the UK Govt is watching this, only not holding breath.

{There are several typos, and it got me thinking, and I thinked that it would be good to have a routine way to mention them, as in an expected, polite and helpful to the author way, . . and I thinked these “brace” thingies I’ve used for this comment don’t get used much . . }

Perhaps, Mark, but displaying them in some form with the article/comments would eliminate much potential redundancy, no doubt.

If it’s possible to have a distinct comment section that perpetually displayed at the end of the regular comments, that might be best, but barring such coding tricks, instituting a convention of sorts wherein once someone made a “proofread” sort of comment (that’s where the “braced” aspect would come in) others could then “reply” to that first one with further detected errors, and the author could find them fairly easily, it seems to me.

A short notice could be displayed after each article, informing people of the desired procedure, and I would think that within a few days it would begin to become “conventional” . .

Having watched the Heritage conference, I was very impressed both with the standard of knowledge of senators as well as their laudable aims improving the science and making government stick to the constitution.

However, there still remained the issue, that poor quality data got us into this mess and unless we dramatically improve the data we have and depoliticise the science, then we could all too easily slip back into the quagmire.

There are three distinct areas: those who collect data, those who use the data to interpret the science and those who take the science and convert it to policy. Science is needed in all three areas, but politics should be kept out of the first two. And there needs to be a clear firewall between those collating the data and those doing the scientific predictions to prevent the temptation of cooking the data to fit the theory.

So, I very much welcome the suggestion of concentrating on a grid measurement of global data. I would also strongly urge that we get satellite monitoring for the polar regions. Together these should provide the necessary combination of good quality ground data and total satellite coverage.

However, the final issue is that climate science has focussed on issues that are conveniently beyond the career life of any of those involved. As a result, there has been little to stop reckless speculation or indeed politically inspired activism taking over the subject.

I therefore strongly suggest the focus of climate research is redirected to long-term weather/short-term climate forecasting at the regional level. Not only will this vastly improve our knowledge of the climate in a way that can be tested against down-to-earth measurements repeatedly through a career, but it will also provide invaluable help to the many communities that suffer from periodic famines and other weather/climate related disasters.

To put it simply: no one is ever going to stop activism on the climate – but if we focus it onto something that is useful to human-kind (regional weather/climate) rather than the current global anti-co2/industry stance which has been totally destructive of modern civilisation – those who are inclined to get involved in activism will be focussing on useful activity

Lamb was absolutely correct, one needs to know about past history and natural variation before there is any prospect of understanding whether man is playing any role whatsoever in Climate. I consider that we need to get a proper handle on the 1940s temperatures.

I consider that there should be an audit of all stations and the most pristine stations (wholly unaffected by UHI and siting issues) should be selected. Then one should look at this station data (no add ins, no drop outs etc just the very same stations) to ascertain what the temperature was in absolute terms, not anomalies in the period late 1930s/early 1940s, and then compare that with today’s temperatures at these same locations. Stations could be selected where there is no siting issues/moves, and no change to TOB so adjustment for such events need not be made. Just get pure empirical data where no adjustments need be made.

This would produce a simple sanity check. There is no need to consider the entire instrument record. We know that the 1940s was warm, we know that manmade CO2 could at most be influential post 1940 so we can quickly see what temperature change there has been during the period when about 95% of all manmade CO2 has been emitted.

The appointments to the Epa of climate sceptics gives me hope that CO2 can be decriminalised. Once it becomes accepted that CO 2 is in fact a beneficial gas and more of it is more beneficial the whole global warming scam collapses. Correlation is not causation . Global temperatures are due pretty much entirely due to natural cycles.

Probably some correlation to the natural variation in temperatures and a fluke double peak at both poles.

Bryan from Climate Concerns is monitoring CFSR temperatures in real-time – the charts below are current as of yesterday. Note there was a super-El-Nino which takes some months to fully impact all regions it does impact.

Antarctic was cold for most of the year but there has been a recent bump. The Arctic has been warmer but then got colder in August which probably led to the earlier-than normal peak of the ice-melt this year. Recently, quite warm as the cold air has moved to Siberia and now North America.

Globally, temperatures peaked at the end of February, 2016 (3 months after the peak of the super-El-Nino which I have been drumming about for 10 years now) and temperatures are finally starting to go down to Zero anomaly now.

The two fastest warming places on the planet – the Antarctic Peninsula and Svalbard. (note these are raw data sources and are not adjusted by the NCDC).

So, now global warming is to be measured by global sea ice? Good one. All this chart shows is that 2016 is an anomalous year.

And, boy, your data goes ALL THE WAY BACK to 1978. Heck. That is before many of the young believers were even born! Ancient history, dude. Well, I guess that settles the question. CO2 is causing global warming. What else could it be. You and your ilk understand all other variables which impact sea ice and only CO2 can be responsible. Does your ilk talk to God?

My ilk is not impressed.

My ilk would like your ilk to send their best to a debate about climate change with a good skeptic. So far, no takers.

co2islife
Are you suggesting those pictures of the submarines at the north pole mean the poles had melted, or had less ice than today? If so you are misleading again.
“When submarines of the U.S. Navy made expeditions to the North Pole in the 1950s and 60s, there was a significant concern about surfacing through the thick pack ice of the Arctic Ocean. In 1962, both the USS Skate and USS Seadragon surfaced within the same, large polynya near the North Pole, for the first polar rendezvous of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[7]”

Do you honestly think a 3 to 5 ppm CO2 change between 2015 and 2016 can cause that change? I’/m not even challenging the validity of your chart, I’m accepting it as accurate. Do you, as an assumed thinking adult, honestly think the marginal increase in CO2 and its marginal increase in W/M^2 could possibly cause such a large change in global sea ice? 2016 was a huge El Nino year. Worse yet, there is no mechanism by which CO2 would ever allow for a rebound in that ice…which will happen later this year and next. I’m not a climate scientists, but I’d bet my life savings that next year that sea ice will rebound. If CO2 wasn’t the cause, that is the logical expectation. If El Nino was the cause, and an El Nina follows, the rebound in that ice would be expected.

If my expectations prove correct, then it is:

You and your ilk ill be judged very harshly.

and I would include dangerously gullible and easily fooled and misguided.

The first picture here taken by the Shackleton Expedition in January 1915, right next to current location of McMurdo. Lots of open water.

The second picture is taken from the McMurdo Webcam just a few seconds ago. Frozen solid.

I think real pictures are the only way we can be certain about past climate conditions now that the warmists just rewrite history.

And this is an animation over the last 32 years of the big ice-shelf right next door to McMurdo, the Ross Ice-Shelf, which has grown very, very considerably since 1984. McMurdo is just to the left of this image cutoff.

Again, this is taken like a “real” picture and has not be illustrated like so much of climate science is today.

Interesting graphs, but what we see here is not so much a trend of any kind but only that 2016 is a clear outlier. How would that be explained by the slow, steady trend of rising CO2? All you have proved here is that you have difficulty making sense of data.

Here is a possible explanation Michael.
A small amount of extra energy is being retained because of the added GHG. Ice takes a lot of energy to melt (without changing it’s temperature). Some of the extra energy being retained has been going into just thinning the ice, reducing its volume and its extent. Both of which are happening.
Melting ice is consuming less and less energy – because there is less ice – the ‘unused’ energy can now all go towards increasing temperature increasing the rate of melt.
The entire Arctic is not going to ‘flash-melt like a small pond on a warm spring morning, it will take a couple of summers. A time-lapse from 2000 – 2020 will show it. It’s happening on that graph right now.
El nino/la nina does not explain it because after the the strong 1998 event there was no such following outlier. And it doesn’t look much like some random variation to me, so we can’t even shove it into the ‘chaos’ basket.

Actually, calling it an “outlier” is not accurate. That implies the ice is going to obediently bounce back to the 30 year average next year and it’ll be business as usual. It’s a real pity, but the results say it is heading in the other direction.

All other graphs lie within the band that represents +/- 2 standard deviations from the mean, or very close to it. The 2016 graph lies all by itself, some 5-6 standard deviations away, and you divine that it is not an outlier? You can’t be serious.

If you absolutely must be trolling us, at least be so good as to no accuse others of supplying “paid propaganda” with absolutely no proof.

paid propaganda that bears no resemblance to reality.
==================
nonsense. there are a near infinite number of proxies available for climate. you can support any conclusion, depending upon which ones you present. that is pseudo-science. phrenology.

the only thing in science that truly matters is the absence of contradiction. if you cannot find a single example that disputes your hypothesis, even from people that want to disprove your hypothesis, then maybe you are onto something.

climate science is not even close. the so called greenhouse effect doesn’t even happen in real greenhouses.

Tony McLeod, it is high time for you to stop using carbon, no more heating your home, no more flying, no more using electricity, no more driving, you must take action and lead the way, set an example, get on it!

Nice bit of history by Dr Ball.
The real problem is selling/teaching the opposing case to people who, for whatever reason, just do not pay attention to the details of an argument. “Oh, that’s just your opinion” with the subtext of “you annoying geek/grind/ sellout/vendido”, and a large percentage of the population has that attitude. While that sort of “low information voter” attitude, to use Rush Limbaugh’s term, can be overcome, doing so is very difficult.
The “social sciences” are mostly not really “science” in their attitudes, mostly, but are nevertheless very important in the political and psychological case of why a social and political mass movement like the green blob operates and has had such important consequences.
I think attacking the greens on their elitist attitudes, that the peons should be kept in an environment straight out of “1984”, Third World misery, or conveniently dead, is the best way to appeal to those they regard as peons. By the way, the self-styled elites regard most people as peons (and wish to keep them in that status). Making the true argument that the “saviors of the planet” wish to raise the voters electric rates several hundred percent for no measurable gain is probably the sort of thing that would get more traction than any of the details why that statement is true.

When the IPCC deliberately orients itself to only study the climate from the perspective of human inputs, it has pre-corrupted itself. Even when the research they sponsor and endorse is factually true, it was done only to advance the broader lie. That lie is not scientific but ideological: that human Utopia is possible only when humans stop burning hydrocarbons to heat and cool their homes, to store their food, to drive their cars and to move goods quickly.

All proposed “climate change” solutions converge on socialism, which philosopher R.T. Allen tells us is directly traceable back to ancient Gnosticism. That religion teaches that humanity can be returned to our rightful place in the heavens when we finally achieve sufficient knowledge.

“The more we come to know about the gnosis of antiquity, the more it becomes certain that modern movements of thought, such as progressivism, positivism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, are variants of gnosticism.”
— Eric Voegelin, Science Politics and Gnosticism, Two Essays, 1968.

“As with all my articles, nothing is cast in stone. It is my summary of what has gone on and what I think is required going forward. It is written in the context of what is needed, namely open forums at which all ideas are given voice. From that collective wisdom we are most likely to get the best answers.”
——————
very laudable.

why then do you support Trumps defunding of climate research.
Surely someone has to do climate research.
and surely someone has to pay for the research.

Perhaps you advocate armchair scientists to provide the wisdom:
i.e.
those that say co2 was much higher in the past then show a plot going back a few hundred million years, but they still refuse to accept temperatures going back a few hundred years

those that use only the temperature sequence (RSS) that backs their view despite the provider of RSS says this version is faulty.

Those that boast no major US hurricane landfalls – totally ignoring destruction elsewhere.

I’m guessing that you believe that
1) Only the US government does climate research
2) That NASA is the only US agency that does such climate research

Let me see if I have this straight, you don’t care that for most of the history of this earth, CO2 and temperature show no correlation, because over the last 200 years they show a very weak correlation?

Total cyclonic energy has been falling for the last decade. That’s a fact.

As I have said (I think) the days of AGW theory being viable are going to end as global cooling which began earlier this year will continue to evolve. First stage was the ending of El Nino and one can see OLR increasing now as a result of this.

My solar theory in one sentence is– Extremely low solar conditions that are persistent will push the terrestrial items which control the climate toward modes which will result in the albedo of the earth to increase therefore promoting cooling.

The 500 mb level in the N.H. seems to be showing an overall cooling trend of late. What I want to see is for this trend to continue but for the poles to be warm relative to the lower latitudes at this level.

This time in the climate is at a crossroads to my way of thinking and this next 6 to 12 months could be very telling.

I also like the overall snow coverage in the N.H. and it looks like it will be going more above average within the next few days, from a level very slightly above average as of today.

Sea surface temperatures overall are on the decline as far as I can tell.

Apologies if this has been covered, but I would add one more restriction to the recorders of climate data: That they not be permitted, unilaterally, to make “adjustments” to their own data. Particularly to hide or reverse inconvenient trends.

What is left for the IPCC after the last one? they stated “very likely that warming is human caused – 95 percent.
Will they go higher in the next one? How do they save face? Can you expect them to correct anything?
Our only hope lies with Trump.

Thank you for your truthfulness. WE the people all know that the government make great effort to “hide the truth” because WE cannot take the truth. When it all comes out in the wash, WE may need to revisit every scientific research that has been done and is being done. The Government agencies will not do it because it would be hard for them to “forget” their mistakes. Only individuals that have knowledge of the abuse will be able to do it. Please remember that whole statement about draining the swamp. Those gators do not care when they are hungry.

This is a great chart to make the argument AGAINST AGW. The warmists are making the claim that man made CO2 is causing the shrinking of the global sea ice. Next year this ice will rebound, I’m nearly 100% certain of that now that the El Nino is over. What will the warmists then claim? That man made CO2 caused the sea ice to rebound? The very data that they publish is the best ammunition against their cause.

The place to start (draining the cult of CAGW swamp) is a power point presentation that shows the history obvious manipulation of GISS.

GISS was altered to eliminate the warming period in the early part of the 20th century and of course increasing the temperatures post 1980. The GISS manipulation were done to create a hockey stick.

The GISS manipulation cannot be defended scientifically. The satellite data does not agree with GISS.

The fact that GISS has manipulated supports the assertion the IPCC reports analysis/conclusion is false. There is no CAGW problem to solve.

The recent reduction in sea ice is due to solar wind bursts caused by massive coronal holes.

The solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes a current to flow which causes changes in the amount of cloud cover and changes cloud parameter in high latitude regions and in the equatorial region. The mechanism is called electroscavenging.

The solar coronal holes are starting to dissipate. As GCR (GCR is the stupid confusing name Galactic Cosmic Rays, there are not rays, mostly high speed protons, which strike the earth’s atmosphere and create MUONs which then create ions in the atmosphere) is the highest in recorded history for this time in the solar cycle, when the coronal hole caused solar wind bursts abate, the high latitude regions of the planet will again cool.

edmh December 11, 2016 at 3:28 am
The tipping point in the Holocene has already occurred at about 1000BC. Since then cooling has occurred at 20 times the rate of the pervious 7000 years. The last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD was the coldest so far of our happy interglacial.

From previous experience the end of of the Holocene is overdue. Global cooling could well begin to accelerate further this century, next century or this millennium.

The sun is descending into a truly quiet phase similar to the Little Ice Age could signal either a cold interlude (quite bad enough for Man-kind and the biosphere) or the escalation to the end our our Interglacial with all the adverse effects that implies: See

Great post dr Ball,again. Here.s my two cents. Ipcc lied. The first scientists report found no agw. Report was written by policy makers of ipcc who changed report to meet an agenda. There is no concensus. Co2 lags warming by 600 yrs. Mike manns hockey stick , climategate emails prove collusion,………

I have very seriously watched coastal weather forecasting since being in Hurricane Donna in 1960 and very much appreciate the enormous, but still with its uncertainties, improvements. Also, it is not just climate research and education that has been compromised, as another example biodiversity, which was introduced, to some large extent, as another advocacy saving the earth sort of thing. Too many biologists, among other professionals, especially celebrity types with the aid of a press looking for crises, put advocacy/activism ahead of science. I would like to see AAAS, NAS or somebody look at college curricula, especially those of non-major science, and identify the extent of the problem. It is probably similar to journalism where doing “good” is too often more important than precision and accuracy. Not the best analogy, but the “perfect” astrophysicists looking at an approaching asteroid should be more interested in its angular momentum than their own impending mortality. And if they were lucky their data would be more useful.

There is nothing wrong with the surface temperature data, which is why I predict the new administration will attempt to shut down collecting it without investigation… an admission it undermines their point of view.

we have already had the independently funded Berkley Earth project look at the surface temp data and uphold it as valid – in particular this proved no undue influence from the ‘urban heat island effect’

further, the current state of the arctic means the arctic sea ice is undoubtedly going to have a dramatic new low during the Trump administration.

Its all very well showing how a few subs can find a hole they can break through in the shifting ice -but when there is clear blue water between the pole and the Russian coast, such that anyone can sail the whole distance in a sub, Viking ship or one of those pedal boats you get in amusement parks…

(Hudson Bay is still 90% unfrozen and there is still no ice around Svalbard. The ice in the Chuckchi Sea (I still can’t spell that!) retreated between the 3rd and the 9th of December…)

BEST’s paper was rejected by every major scientific journal. Mueller had to pay to have it published on a Indian internet website\journal which is now under criminal investigation.. Mueller was also got lying about his views on climate change prior to the study, and went on a PR campaign before the paper was published or peer reviewed.

“There is nothing wrong with the surface temperature data, which is why I predict the new administration will attempt to shut down collecting it without investigation… an admission it undermines their point of view.”

Dr. Ball – good article, full of optimism for the near term future (and please keep reiterating the Maurice Strong story). I want to join in the cheering, but I just don’t know. The opposition is very powerful and isn’t just going to say “sorry” and go home. The opposition::

1 is well funded with groups like Greenpeace, and its billionaire friends
2 has totally co-opted the mainstream media
3 has no respect for the truth, has no interest in the truth
4 in fact, deliberately propagates untruths to further its agenda
5 still has friends in many national and sub-national governments
6 is now very worried
7 has no moral scruples at all (end justifies means)
8 has millions of followers prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause
9 is going to go on the offensive
10 is preparing for an unprecedented campaign of alarmist propaganda
11 will use unceasing character-assassination against the Trump administration
12 no holds will be barred, and no tricks will be too dirty (based on past conduct)

OK – points 9, 10, 11 and 12 are my guesses. I would love to be wrong, but really – hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

To us who hang out here, the climate issue is very important. We are (mostly anyway) seekers for the truth and we’re bitterly offended by the way truth has been abused by the alarmist movement in furtherance of an agenda that’s mostly hidden. But president-elect Trump has plenty of other issues to deal with. So far, it looks good for climate, but the battle is not yet won, nor is the war over. Not by a long shot.

“Strong and his allies created a global threat that they then used to argue could only be resolved by a world government.”

I really don’t think they want a world government, and I never have.

It makes a good scare story, but in realpolitik terms there is being in charge, and there is being responsible. I think the UN is mostly interested in the good old goal of power without responsibility. They want the national governments to actually *run* the world, while deferring to the UN whenever it wants them to.

Hence global warming. They could never be held *responsible* for climate change. But when the world doesn’t end up underwater by 2050, they can take credit…

For the record: Being a farmer, I have followed weather forecasting in New Zealand for over 40 years. Of late (last few years) the NZ Metservice have have been particularly accurate in their forecasts down to predicting within hours when showers and wind direction change, days in advance. It is not an easy country in which to forecast, what with there being multiple zones in which weather can be quite different. Their long-term forecasts (up to 3 months) are pretty darn good as well. They have my utmost respect and appreciation. They don’t get involved in climate discussions. If you want to know about forecasting accuracy talk to those that work the land, not the townies.

The weather forecasting models are getting much more accurate. I think people can rely on them out to 14 days or so now. They are always off by let’s say 50 kms but that is it really (the system was supposed to hit you head on but it ended hitting head-on at 50 kms south of you, that kind of thing).

Yep, Bill. In my case I am at an extreme boundary of my provincial zone as defined by the service. I use a neighbouring zone forecast which is more accurate. The centre of my official zone is around 50 KM away

“It’s not only about power point. It’s also about finding a common core. Alarmists and skeptics both very often argue with extreme statements.

Calling a CAGW believer a fool or something like that will certainly produce some bad hormones, causing the “fight or flight” state. We really know so little about climate and its better to search a neutral area to start with, or areas where both sides can agree with.

Then there is the lengthiness of the most skeptics videos. Even for me it’s often boring to go through.

We just have to think how to get videos viral. And to make short clips with a message that is exiting and creating a true interest to watch additional stuff.

Another problem is that climate skeptic stuff often is combined with other conservative or right views. You cannot convince somebody by expecting to swallow all thing at once.

And the there a lot of skeptical arguments which are simply not true, like DrRoySpencer.com points out:

To convince others we have to be friendly, precise and concise. And to have a lot of endurance. It would be a great thing to work on this, but I have some doubt that the skeptic community will agree to. I just have heard enough angry, name-calling skeptical rant about non-believers.”

Yes, I would work on this task also. I think I have the ability to write in a simple and neutral way about climate topics.

It woud be good to find some guys as a task force for producing power points, video-clips, flyers, etc. It would be good even to make some booklets say 10 to 20 pages for those who don’t read so much and those who need some material for discussions and arguments. There are still a lot of folks, who don’t use the internet and still are relying on the mass media.

Yes … how to go on. I read your webpage. Thank you for the reply. There is tremendous value in what has already been used by un yourself and the likes of Dr Ball. What hasn’t been done is a sort of sentiment analysis …. which arguments demonstrations of a point garner the most positive result.

I am aware of but don’t have the tools myself to measure such a thing. This is s what was done during the Trump campaign using Cambridgeanalytica.Com data and real time testing via Facebook and Twitter … but mostly twitter.

Another outfit in Texas tracked the message sentiment. I forgot the name.

IMO leaders on this discourse would benefit greatly in expanding what works by KNOW ING what works and they CAN KNOW what works by tracking sentiment on social media using for instance daily threads pumped over a hashtag or dedicated account.

I don’t have access to these tracking services but I’m sure a few bright lights may know someone who does and would be interested in expanding what was a successful political approach to this transitioning agw issue.

My benchmark for how thoroughly intelligent, well-educated, and well-meaning individuals can delude themselves (especially when money is on the table) is the “Facilitated Communication” movement that was exposed in the 1993 PBS Frontline report “Prisoners of Silence”. We can look upon the climate change true believers with the same compassion and gentle reprogramming that facilitated communicators needed when their world crashed in on them with the proof that there was no scientific basis for their claims. There will be more tears shed in EPA offices than at Hillery election night rallies. “It is easier to fool people than to convince people they’ve been fooled” – Mark Twain

Here’s a 14-minute excerpt of the PBS program; the entire program is recommended as you will never forget it and often see examples of the same mental phenomenon thereafter: https://youtu.be/Dqhlv0UZUwY

Thanks for that link. I remember that study and I also remember how desperately ppl hung onto the “belief”. We are a silly little bunch of primates but perhaps our weaknesses provide an opportunity for positive change. The famous Asch experiment demonstrous how easily we primates monkey see monkey do. It ALSO shows how just one supporting dissenter allows the dissenter to break free from the groupthink. https://youtu.be/FnT2FcuZaYI

I think Dr Ball sees an opportunity here. If just a few more real life engagers go on road tours like he has they will by default present themselves as supporting dissenters to those who are curious enough to dissent but pressured by the in group bias pressure as demonstrated by Asch.

The current political movement presents an opportunity to speak freely with diminished fear of reprisal. Folks like Ball fought hard to claim this turf. I’m interested in learning what works best for them and pushing the ground gained.

I’m not as worried about the mob because as Hoffer describes … the followers follow the leaders.
This is an important opportunity. Would be a shame to blow it.

Corbin Robinson Jr may well have exhorted his audience to ‘take up arms’, but the evidence of them having done so is conspicuous by its absence. Much of the heavy lifting in the skeptosphere still seems to have been done by largely unpaid volunteers like Anthony Watts, JoNova, Judith Curry, Andrew Montford, to name but a few.

Oh no, the boogey man is going to get you.
In Griffies world, if a think tank gets 1% of it’s funding for 1 year from an evil source, that think tank is forever polluted beyond redemption.
The only cure is to swear allegiance to the one true religion and condemn all those you used to work with.

“Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This organization is comprised of weather bureaucrats from every UN member nation. They created, controlled, and promoted the IPCC agenda so that politicians had no choice, as Strong intended.” — I doubt on this statement. IPCC is a political body created by power nations to sub-serve their interests — in fact this I presented in my papers and books on climate change, more than a decade back. The US chose non-weather-climate man as chairman and technical committees were filled with people who have no basic knowledge on weather-climate. Also, WMO has brought out a manual on Climate Change as back as 1966. The authors of this manual were top meteorologists from different member states.

Please look at WMO’s reports published before 1989, before IPCC was created. They are excellent reports prepared by world meteorologists.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

The problem is not bad statistics, bad science, bad economics, or even bad government. It is bad philosophy. As Robert James Bidinotto puts it:

Why, despite such transparent manipulations of fact and science, and their overt indifference to economics, have environmentalists been winning the battle for the hearts and minds of ordinary people?

Because they’ve never based their appeals primarily on facts, statistics, science, or economics. They rest their case ultimately on ethical and philosophical grounds. Both their appeal and their shamelessness arise from the widespread belief that they are idealists: that they are champions of the Good against the forces of Evil that are sullying and raping a once-virginal planet.
. . .
Critics of environmentalists have seldom understood this, or known how to respond. The best among them have tried to confront environmentalist claims and activities with exposés of their “junk science.” Some try to employ economic arguments, showing the enormous costs that environmentalists are imposing on people and businesses. Other less sophisticated critics try to appeal to the public’s common sense, denouncing environmentalist “extremism.” Sadly, the most futile response in the face of environmental activism – piecemeal appeasement – too often comes from the beleaguered business community.
. . .
None of these responses is working, of course, because they are all beside the point. They don’t address the fundamental concern raised by environmentalists. That concern is about values. It’s about the logical incompatibility of the values underlying a modern, technological, capitalist society, and the values embodied in the environmentalists’ image of Eden.
. . .
[Emphasis in original]

You know, all these posts on WWUT demonstrate one thing: they don’t matter to me. All I need to know is that the temperature history is either: an estimate of ice cores or tree rings or some other nonsensical data series OR it is based on thermometer readings which have been caressed and manipulated by scientists. Once I know that, I know that either man-made global warming or non man-made global warming is crap and not worth wasting time on.

“Science must be central to whatever direction taken.” I agree but once this thing is fully exposed science will suffer a black eye. It will be hard for some in the public to believe scientists. The profession of science, at least in the fields associated with climate, will suffer for the abuse and lies they have foisted on the public.

I’m confused. I’ve read that Thatcher encouraged the IPCC (via promised funding) to create a finding that coal/CO2 was changing our environment, thus giving her a club to destroy the coal unions in GB. Am I completely mistaken? There is no mention of that here. I understand that there may no single basis for the threat of CO2, but this is completely omitted here.

“Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO)”

In my book, the WMO is a rogue organization. Here is a simple example of why: The definition of longitude has been set by international treaty (to which the US, in particular, is a signatory), with values ranging from -180 to 1809; this definition is codified by International Standard ISO 6709.

In its arrogance claims to override this Standard by proclaiming a purported standard for longitude with values ranging from 0 to 360.

Ask all goobermint climate employees if they work with climate models, or compiling the average global temperature, or making long term climate predictions.

Send them a message from Donald Trump:
“You’re fired !”

I’m serious about this.

It will take at least a generation, or a few consecutive years of unusually cold weather, to refute the coming climate change catastrophe fantasy.

And even if that boogeyman is killed off, another one will replace it.

How about ocean acidification?

Or GMO foods?

Or exploding silicone breast implants?

How can socialism grow without a false coming catastrophe for the goobermint to fight with more spending, and more regulations, and more goobermint employees, etc. etc.

The false boogeyman is just a marketing tool to promote BIG goobermint — good science is irrelevant — not that making wrong long-term predictions about the future climate has anything to do with science!

The quote from Corbin Robinson reads “Those who have doubts about whether humans are causing the planet to warm must develop bullet points of information easily digestible for public consumption to counteract the current climate science, the type that the average person can understand”

Well let’s give it a go with these bullet points …

(1) If one electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms you to a comfortable 42°C, will sixteen such radiators cook you at 357°C? No, and that’s because the warming effect of adding the flux of different sources of radiation is not the same as the warming effect of a single source yielding the same total flux. Hence NASA is wrong in implying in their diagrams that radiation from the cold atmosphere (including that from carbon dioxide) will triple the warming effect of solar radiation. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.

(2) If the radiation from greenhouse gases raises the surface temperature by “33 degrees” as the IPCC website says, then most of that warming must be from average concentrations of just over 1% of water vapor. Let’s say each 1% does at least 20 degrees of warming. So in a rainforest with 4% water vapor do we see 80 degrees of warming? No. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.

(3) The surface of Venus receives only about 10% of the solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. But to achieve the 460°C surface temperature there would need to be about 1,000 times as much radiation. Could radiation from the less-hot Venus atmosphere support (and even raise) the surface temperature of Venus? No. So the whole radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is wrong.

Dr. Ball:
CAGW is a false crisis used for political gains, and you know it.

Too many writers here waste space over-analyzing temperature anomalies to two or more-decimal places, or making climate predictions that will be wrong.

CAGW is nothing more than 40 years of scary climate predictions that have been wrong for 40 years — that’s not real science!

Wrong predictions about the future climate from skeptics are not real science either!

(1) You say the IPCC does “research.”
I disagree.

The IPCC starts with the conclusion that runaway warming from man made CO2 is coming — real research does not start with the conclusion.

The only thing left for IPCC contributors to do is data mining and cherry picking to support that pre-existing conclusion — that’s not research — especially when the Summary Report’s final edit is done by government bureaucrats and climate activists, many with no climate science training.

The raw data are inaccurate (relative to satellite data), don’t cover half the planet, and have been abused with repeated, suspicious “adjustments”.

Governments should stop wasting taxpayers’ money compiling rough estimates of the average surface temperature that do not benefit anyone.

Donald Trump should tell all climate modelers, average temperature compilers, and their helpers on government payrolls: “You’re fired, and predictions of the future climate are banned.”
If those bureaucrats are government union members, difficult to fire, then transfer them to Alaska to count polar bears!

In place of collecting inaccurate surface data, I propose a small group of observers looking for actual negative, secondary symptoms of climate change:

Two potential symptoms of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere would be:
(A) If the climate gets too warm, there will be millions of fat people complaining its too hot and/or moving north.

(B) If the climate gets too cold, there will be millions of senior citizens complaining its too cold and/or moving south.

(C) I’m serious about (A) and (B) — they would reveal more about climate change than estimates of the “average temperature” in tenths of a degree!

If people notice warming, and it happens to be caused by CO2, then it will mainly be warming at night in cold nations … and I imagine people living there will say: “Give us more of that!”